Cardinal Ratzinger v. Catholic Encyclopedia: Did humanity owe a debt?

[Michael_Mayo]

Looking good , OneSheep. And the cross?

 

[wmw]

Good Morning, Michael!
…

Before we forgive ourselves, we are going to have a sense of guilt, debt to God, society, or whomever. Before we forgive others, we are going to sense that an offender owes us. These “senses” are God’s will, these “senses” guide our behavior. Once we have forgiven at the deepest level, our own love is uninhibited by sense of debt. Love itself is the guide, and Love as the guide is also God’s will, but it takes time, experiences, awareness, and choices, until we can forgive at the deepest level.

Feel free to critique, comment, modify, and make suggestions.

Thanks!

Somewhat near the sense of my own words from Post 151:

I think we need the idea of debt to see the seriousness of sin to help us understand the tangible gravity of it. This capturing the real debt and need of repayment is so very important in order to reach true sorrow and therefore obtain a state of contrition and therefore do not return to the sin by taking it too lightly and repeatedly accepting forgiveness too conveniently. I just don’t think there is a word that transmits this concept better that the word debt; therefore, the Holy Spirit uses it in the Gospel of Mathew.

Yet, the opening, “Before we forgive ourselves”, fits in the sense that we may be too easy on ourselves, but needs clarification that we need the Sacrament of Reconciliation and a session that ends in Absolution.

 

[OneSheep]

How do we harmonize God’s infinite love for us, and by sin we incurred a debt, we owe God. Again the debt as I see it is a debt of love, but also of a humble submission(and rightly so) to God, and to the will of God (which is always consistent with His love for us). We do God no favors but by doing His will we do ourselves good. In humble submission to His will we place ourselves were we should be, at the feet of our Creator in adoration, and love. When we sin doing our will contrary to His we go against everything that guarantees our happiness and well-being, for we were created for God and by Him, and in Him.
In God’s infinite love He designed a pay-back debt,a debt where we owe Him, to do what we are supposed to do in order to accomplish His design, union with Him
But the problem is we can’t do what we are suppose to do because we can’t redeem ourselves, we can’t pick our selves up by our boot-straps we can’t give what we don’t have. When we sin we do not have love for God. (For it is God’s love for us that causes our love for Him). When we sin we are proud, arrogant, weak, selfish, lustful, all of the vices. No only that but there is Satan who takes advantage of our weakness, his rule over us when we lost the Holy Spirit through Adam. The Father remedied this situation out of love, represented by His Son, Jesus Christ. It is through the sanctifying effects of the Holy Spirit merited by Jesus Christ that we now have the ability to conquer our selves, and all our weaknesses. By the implimentation of all the means God provided by Jesus, through His Spirit, in love of man, man is now able to pay back the love and adoration that belongs to God, so this is why I say "the means to pay back the debt (designed by God in love) can be harmonized with His infinite love. It is said “Lord cause me to do, and to accomplish”, His love for us caused us to love Him. Paying back the debt (of love) couldn’t be accomplished with out the Holy Spirit , Love is sent out, Jesus Christ, and love (The Holy Spirit) returns us to the Father. And it is accomplished through a debt owed designed by God Jesus showed us the way to pay the debt we owe God, and He made it possible.

Good Morning, Ynotzap!

I had to read through your work on harmonizing a couple times, and ran out of time yesterday to give a good response.

Some unanswered questions:
How does God feel towards man before the debt is paid? Are we held in some kind of contempt, or not? Does God forgive man unconditionally? Does man occupy some state of unworthiness of communion with Him until the debt is paid, or does God wait with open arms? Or does God chase us down? What about people who would want to love God, but have no idea who God is, or love God but do not think they are sinning?

Would God have withheld his own communion with man if the debt had not been paid? In Duns Scotus “the primacy of Christ” view, Christ was always part of creation, indeed, the primacy of creation itself, not dependent on man’s sin, not a “fixit” for man’s sin in terms of debt or expiation to God.

This from Seraphim, in post 2 of this thread:

Therefore the Word of God, Himself God, the Son of God who in the beginning was with God, through whom all things were made and without whom was nothing made with the purpose of delivering man from eternal death, became man: so bending Himself to take on Him our humility without decrease in His own majesty, that remaining what He was and assuming what He was not, He might unite the true form of a slave to that form in which He is equal to God the Father, and join both natures together by such a compact that the lower should not be swallowed up in its exaltation nor the higher impaired by its new associate. Without detriment therefore to the properties of either substance which then came together in one person, majesty took on humility, strength weakness, eternity mortality: and for the paying off of the debt, belonging to our condition, inviolable nature was united with possible nature, and true God and true man were combined to form one Lord, so that, as suited the needs of our case, one and the same Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus, could both die with the one and rise again with the other. - St Leo the Great

With St. Leo, the debt belonged to our condition. As Pope Benedict said, we acknowledge our guilt before God, that is our condition. It is our God-given nature to feel guilt, and to sense that we “owe” something to God. Now, is that “owing” an appeasement? That is not the impression we get from St. Leo in that passage. God came and became a slave, that shows great effort on His part. Does God stop there, does He say “okay, now I did it, you have to do your part, or else”? Or does His effort continue for every single one of His lost sheep, until we would have to “scream and kick against God” in order to separate from Him, using the words of a wonderful priest who taught us.

I like your approach, in that it leaves a lot of room for a variety of attitudes projected onto God; it leaves a lot of questions unanswered, a lot of space for varying notions of debt and “attitudes” for God, up to the individual. And, now that I think again, such vagueness is in itself harmonizing, in that it is pastoral!!!

Now, St. Leo also presents a pastoral approach, which in that paragraph does not include a notion of satan’s “rule” which makes his approach even more all-encompassing, it leaves room for people who do not include such “rule” as a important aspect of the incarnation or even the existence of such “rule”. So, His approach, in its simplicity, is even more harmonizing.

Why go into too much specifics, when it is really the Eucharist (in the all-inclusive use of the word, such as community, gratitude, incarnation, etc.), not theological detail, that matters more?

Thanks, Ynotzap!

 

[OneSheep]

Looking good , OneSheep. And the cross?

Hi Michael,

The cross, then, would be viewed differently depending on the “condition” of the observer. For a person who still projects that people owe them and that he owes God, and that God is satisfied by a payment, the cross stands a replacement for all of that “owing”, it substitutes, it is a ransom. It also stands as a guide of giving one’s life for others.

For the person who has forgiven every power, person, and aspect of the self that they held anything against, the whole sense of “creditor” has disappeared, so the cross stands as the extreme of incarnation itself, that Christ not only became man but experienced the worst of all experiences, in that every human on Earth can relate to the incarnation, and derive unity from it.

That said, I can think of a load of other aspects of the cross, but I’m aiming toward some brevity. The “after forgiveness of others” view would be one that puts a lot of value on “forgive them, for they know not what they do.”, for those words of forgiveness were delivered to an unrepentant crowd.

Again, feel free to critique, add, modify, etc.

Thanks!

 

[OneSheep]

Somewhat near the sense of my own words from Post 151:

I think we need the idea of debt to see the seriousness of sin to help us understand the tangible gravity of it. This capturing the real debt and need of repayment is so very important in order to reach true sorrow and therefore obtain a state of contrition and therefore do not return to the sin by taking it too lightly and repeatedly accepting forgiveness too conveniently. I just don’t think there is a word that transmits this concept better that the word debt; therefore, the Holy Spirit uses it in the Gospel of Mathew.

Yet, the opening, “Before we forgive ourselves”, fits in the sense that we may be too easy on ourselves, but needs clarification that we need the Sacrament of Reconciliation and a session that ends in Absolution.

Good morning, wmw!

I bolded what I think is the most significant part of that paragraph. Some (most?) people need to have a sense of guilt in order to guide their behaviors, and arguably this is the case for all of us early in life. It is a “stick” that keeps us in line. It is God’s will that we see a debt. For a person whose actions are guided completely by love for God and other, the “stick” is still there, but actions taken are out of compassion instead of avoidance of punishment. This person has shed all of the “conditions” for loving all, because all has been forgiven. Return to the sin is a non-issue, for return to the sin is not compassionate.

This does not rule out failure, but it does open the mind of the believer to be compassionate to everyone. When we hold something against people, this is an inhibition to compassion, we are blinded by resentment.

In addition, it is through awareness that we come to know the value of everyone, so ambivalence towards others is no longer an issue.

The sacrament of reconciliation has its place of importance for all believers, but it may be seen a bit differently by people, depending on their view. Yes, it is extremely important that a person experiences the forgiveness of God, first hand, in the sacrament. However, what good is it that a person knows God forgives them, but cannot let go of self-condemnation? That person is still a slave, not experiencing an eternal life. Forgiveness of self is not a replacement for knowing that God forgives us, but it is also very important.

Not sure I addressed everything there. Let me know if I missed something.

Thanks for your response.

 

[ynotzap]

One Sheep:
I think the parable of the Prodigal son gives us a good perspective about debt. As you know one son desired his inheritance and wasted it on a dissipated life. He reflected on how his life was going and realized that his father’s servants had it better than he. He thought how he would speak to his father in order to at least to be treated as a servant and not a son.
He would humble himself, and state that he had sinned against Heaven and the father.and that he should not be treated as a son. It is stated when the father got sight of him he had COMPASSION on his son, and embraced him and kissed him. He even celebrated his return in a special way. The father stated that his son was lost and had be found.

Nowhere in the story did the father require any sort of debt. I suppose that the father already knew the pain the son had suffered for his foolish ways, and how he was humbled knowing he had done wrong towards his father, and even Heaven

Compassion means sorrow for the suffering of others, or the trouble of others with a desire to help, deep sympathy. The father in his wisdom knew that his son was suffering for the foolish, unwise choice that his son made. The father stated that his son was dead and had come to life again. No debt was ever considered, just joy on his son’s return. Jesus spoke in many parables of compassion, and forgiving debt, and how the master was angry at the servant who didn’t forgive a debt when he himself had been forgiven…

We know that the Father disciplines those He loves for it is said in scripture “What father is there that does not discipline the son he loves” Mankind was cursed because of the fall of Adam. Now every person that is born, is born with original sin, through no fault of their own. We are deprived of the Holy Spirit A great offense was made to God, instead of love and gratitude, and obedience for the wonderful and holy state that Adam was in before the fall he turned his back on God, and looked to himself, Satan did the same thing, the sin of pride.and ingratitude, and arrogance. Yet God had compassion on man’s condition, knowing he could never repay the debt owed to God. So Jesus was sent to redeem humanity from this fallen condition. Restore the gift of the Holy Spirit , redeem man from the works of Satan. Man in following Jesus example humbles himself, Jesus humbled himself becoming man except in sin, and made restitution to the Father by offering Himself for the debt of humanity. Now man must humble himself before Jesus Christ by accepting Him and loving Him for who He is, the Son of God Man was dead, and with Christ he is born again with new life of grace, he was lost and now is found. God pursues each person as one poet stated " like the Hound of Heaven" But man has free will and he will always have the option to love himself more than God, or love God more than himself. If he chooses the latter he will be guaranteed that the Holy Spirit will cause him to grow in that love until he is united with God Man is restored to the state of holiness that God always intended in order to be united with Him, his final destiny.

 

[OneSheep]

One Sheep:
I think the parable of the Prodigal son gives us a good perspective about debt. As you know one son desired his inheritance and wasted it on a dissipated life. He reflected on how his life was going and realized that his father’s servants had it better than he. He thought how he would speak to his father in order to at least to be treated as a servant and not a son.
He would humble himself, and state that he had sinned against Heaven and the father.and that he should not be treated as a son. It is stated when the father got sight of him he had COMPASSION on his son, and embraced him and kissed him. He even celebrated his return in a special way. The father stated that his son was lost and had be found.

Nowhere in the story did the father require any sort of debt. I suppose that the father already knew the pain the son had suffered for his foolish ways, and how he was humbled knowing he had done wrong towards his father, and even Heaven

Compassion means sorrow for the suffering of others, or the trouble of others with a desire to help, deep sympathy. The father in his wisdom knew that his son was suffering for the foolish, unwise choice that his son made. The father stated that his son was dead and had come to life again. No debt was ever considered, just joy on his son’s return. Jesus spoke in many parables of compassion, and forgiving debt, and how the master was angry at the servant who didn’t forgive a debt when he himself had been forgiven…

We know that the Father disciplines those He loves for it is said in scripture “What father is there that does not discipline the son he loves” Mankind was cursed because of the fall of Adam. Now every person that is born, is born with original sin, through no fault of their own. We are deprived of the Holy Spirit A great offense was made to God, instead of love and gratitude, and obedience for the wonderful and holy state that Adam was in before the fall he turned his back on God, and looked to himself, Satan did the same thing, the sin of pride.and ingratitude, and arrogance. Yet God had compassion on man’s condition, knowing he could never repay the debt owed to God. So Jesus was sent to redeem humanity from this fallen condition. Restore the gift of the Holy Spirit , redeem man from the works of Satan. Man in following Jesus example humbles himself, Jesus humbled himself becoming man except in sin, and made restitution to the Father by offering Himself for the debt of humanity. Now man must humble himself before Jesus Christ by accepting Him and loving Him for who He is, the Son of God Man was dead, and with Christ he is born again with new life of grace, he was lost and now is found. God pursues each person as one poet stated " like the Hound of Heaven" But man has free will and he will always have the option to love himself more than God, or love God more than himself. If he chooses the latter he will be guaranteed that the Holy Spirit will cause him to grow in that love until he is united with God Man is restored to the state of holiness that God always intended in order to be united with Him, his final destiny.

Hi Ynotzap

Your words clearly demarcate the two approaches, but I’m not sure that you see it. I will blend the two depictions above, and perhaps you will notice:

A great offense was made to God, instead of love and gratitude, and obedience for the wonderful and holy state that Adam was in before the fall he turned his back on God, and looked to himself. (God) did not require any sort of debt. I suppose that (God) already knew the pain (Adam) had suffered for his foolish ways, and how he was humbled knowing he had done wrong towards (God).

It is stated when (God) got sight of (Adam) he had COMPASSION on (him), and embraced him and kissed him. He even celebrated his return in a special way. (God) stated that his son was lost and had been found.

I know, the mixing is abominable, but do you see what I mean? What is the difference between the two stories, and how do we make it all work together? Well, one major difference is that the prodigal son was humbled by his situation.

But think about it, before the son was humbled, he did not exactly obey his father, for certainly no father would want his son to squander the wealth like that. What was the father’s feeling at that time? offense?

1. If he did take offense, did he *require *that the son repent and sense (require) that the son owed him a payment of repentance (debt view), or
2. did he never take offense, and forgive immediately and unconditionally, knowing full well that when the son would suffer the consequences and gain awareness of his state he would eventually come back (no-debt view)?

Applying my tentative theory, I am thinking that it is God’s will that we sense, even require, a debt to be paid by our fellow man and to God for harm done, until we forgive our fellow man and ourselves regardless of payment. It is our nature that we sense debt, and the requirement of payment adequately (hopefully) motivates those who offend us to make amends. However, given that this nature is part of our machination, and it can enslave us, true freedom means coming to the point that we see that no one owes us anything, nor do we owe anyone else, in the sense that such debt payment is demanded in order for self, other, or God to love and favor us.

In other words, the debt view has its place because it is functional, it serves to guide people’s behaviors when compassion is not constantly in mind. The debt view, as a default mode, is vital to our survival as a species .

(continued)

 

[OneSheep]

Continued response to Ynotzap:

The no-debt view is a move beyond, it is a freedom to love without the inhibitions of sense of debt. It comes, in part, as a result of forgiving the unrepentant. We can assume that the prodigal son’s father forgave his son long before the son was humbled, long before the son was repentant, for the attitude of the father was unchanged throughout the story. He freely gave to the son, and then he freely accepted his return. In the debt view, this attitude would have been interrupted with a period of contempt. The story of Adam centers on a God who took offense. On the other hand, the cross carried not a God who took offense, but a God who forgave - even the unrepentant.

Forgiveness of the unrepentant involves a further development of faith, it involves letting go, and not all of the faithful are ready to take that step. In the mean time, there is a place in the Church for everyone, regardless of where they are in their journey.

Is this “harmonizing”? Feel free to critique, modify, etc.

Thanks for your response!

 

[wmw]

The no-debt view is a move beyond, it is a freedom to love without the inhibitions of sense of debt. It comes, in part, as a result of forgiving the unrepentant.

Why do you say that an understanding of our debts in which we been forgiven inhibits our freedom to love? Isn’t knowing how much we’ve been freely given an incentive to forgive. Isn’t the Lord’s prayer saying that we receive our forgiveness in light of our forgiveness of others. If we have no debts what does that mean? No, I don’t find this a compelling explanation to embrace the no-debt view.

In the debt view, this attitude would have been interrupted with a period of contempt.

I also reject the argument that God holds a grudge if we are in debt to him or others. Why can’t we be in debt without God holding a grudge? Just as the Son has squandered the Father’s wealth we and Adam have squandered many of the gifts that God has given us. We do have a debt, but God is forgiving and merciful right from the start and holds no grudge.

Forgiveness of the unrepentant involves a further development of faith, it involves letting go, and not all of the faithful are ready to take that step. In the mean time, there is a place in the Church for everyone, regardless of where they are in their journey.

This is True regardless of the views. I only see that someone who has had a debt paid and knows that others debts are also paid is more humble and less judgmental than someone who claims, “I’ve never had any debt”, and of course we understand he is a liar for all have sinned, but Christ and His mother.

 

[ynotzap]

One Sheep:

After Adams fall (one of pride and disobedience, and ingratitude) how could God require a debt that He knew Adam could not pay? Contact with God was not possible, Heaven was closed, the Holy Spirit was gone out of the life of Adam. Humanity was doomed to sin and to Satan’s rule over sinful man. The just debt was humility, obedience, and gratitude, and love. When man offends God, does he love God? We owe God all our love (it is also the greatest commandment, along with love of neighbor)

God knew what would happen before it happened, He also knew He could not create an"infallible man" only God is infallible. You can’t make the same comparison between Adam and the Prodigal son, and the debt owed to the father by the prodigal son. Jesus used the parable to describe a son who was capable of fulfilling a debt that was owed to his father. a debt of love, apology (which was accepted before he even apologized), and now obedience and humility and love. Remember it was stated by the father that his son was dead and now alive, lost and now found. This was not possible to Adam, he was only given hope, the Prodigal son was given the Holy Spirit by Jesus with His coming. The hope had been fulfilled Jesus made it possible to pay the debt owed with His own life.

So we have two entirely different scenarios . Even God’s treatment of humanity was different. From Adam to Jesus, it was the letter of the law, death for transgressions if you violated God by adoring false gods eg.among the chosen people. Now it is the law of grace, compassion, love, forgiveness, restitution, justice, truth Made possible to man by Jesus Now man can escape the rule of Satan and sin and he can do this only through Jesus Christ. The scene was changed completely. Jesus made it possible to harmonize the payment of the debt owed to God, and God’s infinite love for man. The Father always had infinite love for man, and His Son gave us Their Spirit, the Holy Spirit, the Executor of God’s will, man’s Salvation and union with God.

 

[CrossofChrist]

Hello Onesheep, I’ve returned

Perhaps this analogy help explain:

Imagine you are walking along the streets of a city, and lying on the street is a person asking for money/food. It is easily apparent that they are desperately in need, and moved by compassion, you generously and freely give them alms.

On the one hand, what you did was a complete act of charity–it was done freely out of love. What you did was perform a corporal work of mercy. On the other hand, you also paid a debt to justice. This wasn’t done in a way that felt obligatory or externally forced, but at the same time it certainly was morally required. CCC 2446 quotes St. Gregory of Nyssa, who says, “When we attend to the needs of those in want, we give them what is theirs, not ours. More than performing works of mercy, we are paying a debt of justice.”

Benedict XVI in his Encyclical Caritas in Veritate speaks about the “logic of gift”. Pope Francis will equate that with the “logic of Jesus” and sacrifice. This helps us understand where Pope Benedict’s (Ratzinger!) and Pope Francis’ “logic” comes from. Jesus’ Incarnation and offering on the Cross is done not in the first place to satisfy a debt, but freely to come to us out of love. This is what the emphasis is placed on in Introduction to Christianity, and rightly so. We can see the same emphasis in JPII (for just one example, check out Dives in Misericordia). But at the same time, he truly does satisfy the infinite debt we owe to God because of our sins.

So how do we solve the paradox? Quite frankly, we can’t. The Mystery isn’t for us to hold unto–it is always greater than we are, always opening up new pathways, for God is infinite. St. Augustine’s famous and incredibly moving saying comes to my mind, “Late have I loved you, oh Beauty so ancient and so new! Late have I loved you!”

And so we are called to embrace it all, even if we can’t understand it all. So we have God’s infinite love for us, yet apart from God’s intervention we are born with original sin and deprived of sanctifying grace. (O Mary conceived without sin, pray for us who have recourse to thee!) God is pure Reason, but also pure Freedom.

God bless.

 

[CrossofChrist]

In addition, Trent also makes clear that we must accept that we can merit and increase in grace (if the terminology is confusing, we could say “grow closer in our relationship with God”–our faith isn’t stagnant!).

 

[CrossofChrist]

perhaps we can take note that God’s love is identical with God’s justice in his infinite simplicity. So in God these are brought together and reconciled.

 

[simpleas]

Hello Onesheep, I’ve returned

Perhaps this analogy help explain:

Imagine you are walking along the streets of a city, and lying on the street is a person asking for money/food. It is easily apparent that they are desperately in need, and moved by compassion, you generously and freely give them alms.

On the one hand, what you did was a complete act of charity–it was done freely out of love. What you did was perform a corporal work of mercy. On the other hand, you also paid a debt to justice. This wasn’t done in a way that felt obligatory or externally forced, but at the same time it certainly was morally required. CCC 2446 quotes St. Gregory of Nyssa, who says, “When we attend to the needs of those in want, we give them what is theirs, not ours. More than performing works of mercy, we are paying a debt of justice.”

Benedict XVI in his Encyclical Caritas in Veritate speaks about the “logic of gift”. Pope Francis will equate that with the “logic of Jesus” and sacrifice. This helps us understand where Pope Benedict’s (Ratzinger!) and Pope Francis’ “logic” comes from. Jesus’ Incarnation and offering on the Cross is done not in the first place to satisfy a debt, but freely to come to us out of love. This is what the emphasis is placed on in Introduction to Christianity, and rightly so. We can see the same emphasis in JPII (for just one example, check out Dives in Misericordia). But at the same time, he truly does satisfy the infinite debt we owe to God because of our sins.

So how do we solve the paradox? Quite frankly, we can’t. The Mystery isn’t for us to hold unto–it is always greater than we are, always opening up new pathways, for God is infinite. St. Augustine’s famous and incredibly moving saying comes to my mind, “Late have I loved you, oh Beauty so ancient and so new! Late have I loved you!”

And so we are called to embrace it all, even if we can’t understand it all. So we have God’s infinite love for us, yet apart from God’s intervention we are born with original sin and deprived of sanctifying grace. (O Mary conceived without sin, pray for us who have recourse to thee!) God is pure Reason, but also pure Freedom.

God bless.

Original sin can be seen as a teaching that keeps people in fear. Saying we are born separate from God, and until we are baptised, we are still in the contracted state of O.S, so through fear of not wanting to be separate from God, we are baptised and baptise our children. Does God want us to fear him from the moment of our birth?

Maybe I should start another thread on the question…

 

[CrossofChrist]

Original sin can be seen as a teaching that keeps people in fear. Saying we are born separate from God, and until we are baptised, we are still in the contracted state of O.S, so through fear of not wanting to be separate from God, we are baptised and baptise our children. Does God want us to fear him from the moment of our birth?

Maybe I should start another thread on the question…

We could discuss “baptism of desire” and things like that, but OS is Catholic dogma.

 

[OneSheep]

Good Morning, wmw, and sorry about the delay in my response.

Why do you say that an understanding of our debts in which we been forgiven inhibits our freedom to love? Isn’t knowing how much we’ve been freely given an incentive to forgive. Isn’t the Lord’s prayer saying that we receive our forgiveness in light of our forgiveness of others. If we have no debts what does that mean? No, I don’t find this a compelling explanation to embrace the no-debt view.

Yes, I think I would not find it compelling either, with the limited amount of information coming from me, and not being familiar with duns Scotus and others.

If I feel that someone owes me a debt, for example, that sense of debt is something I “hold against” the person, and it can be more or less a roadblock to empathy and compassion, thus part of the necessity for forgiveness (there are many other reasons why forgiveness is important).

And yes, absolutely, knowing how much we have been freely given is an incentive to forgive, and that “free giving” is addressed by Cardinal Ratzinger as contrary to Anselm’s depiction, that with expiation you have the image of a God who gives and then takes away, if you take another look at the link in the OP. But you see, I think that such an image of God who gives and then takes is still a legitimate aspect of the view that man owes God a debt. God gave us the garden, and then He took it away.

What does it mean if we have no debts? Well, first of all, to see that we have no debts can only take place once one has forgiven every single person, including oneself, that one holds something against. Once this has occurred, then the endpoint is wholeness, “holiness”, there is nothing that inhibits our ability to love. I must add, however, that the natural urge for reciprocity (you help me, I help you) and simple inspired reaction can also create a sense of debt, though the image of the “creditor” takes a different form. I am not addressing that kind of debt situation in this paragraph.

I also reject the argument that God holds a grudge if we are in debt to him or others. Why can’t we be in debt without God holding a grudge? Just as the Son has squandered the Father’s wealth we and Adam have squandered many of the gifts that God has given us. We do have a debt, but God is forgiving and merciful right from the start and holds no grudge.

Here, wmw, I think you are addressing the sense of debt I addressed at the end of my last paragraph. I think that you probably agree that “debt” takes many forms, but it all depends on the attitude of the Creditor. Or even, is God a creditor at all? Does He demand payment? Is there an “or else” on the part of God, a disfavor when payment is lacking? These are the questions which has answers that separate the legitimate views.

This is True regardless of the views. I only see that someone who has had a debt paid and knows that others debts are also paid is more humble and less judgmental than someone who claims, “I’ve never had any debt”, and of course we understand he is a liar for all have sinned, but Christ and His mother.

Yes, that is definitely more humble, I agree. I don’t see how a person who holds a no-debt view could think that they never had any debt unless they also see that no one else ever had any debt either.

But there is a very important caveat, I think, in all of this, that needs to be expressed. In my own view of it all, it is of no use to tell a person who has not forgiven in the way I described, in this post and others, that God does not demand a debt. That statement would make no sense, and would be confusing. Instead, it seems to me that what is to be is encouraged is forgiveness, a deeper forgiveness that includes understanding the sinner to the point of being able to say “I could have done that, given that person’s scope of the situation.” and being able to say, “I can see the good intent in this, that, and every single bad behavior I (or anyone else) have/has ever done, even though I (and all) was/were blind and ignorant.”

A person holding a grudge is a person who has a sense of debt. A person who has not reconciled with his or her own motivations, ignorance, blindness, and past sins has a sense of debt. No amount of saying “there is no debt” would be productive or helpful in the least. This is just my “thinking aloud” here. Do you see what I mean? back to my very-tentative theory: God wills that we have a sense of debt until we forgive everyone else and ourselves.

Thanks, wmw! If that does not clear things up a bit, feel free to reject it! I am only presenting a very limited version of both views. Perhaps there are other versions that make more sense. Remember, too, that language has its limitations…

 

[Michael_Mayo]

I am liking what I read from Anna Case-Winters

Perhaps we should begin again at the beginning. We affirm with I Corinthians 5, “God was in Christ reconciling the world.” This story is not about God punishing or causing or requiring the suffering of some other. It is rather about God in Christ, a co-sufferer in solidarity with human beings, in a way that offers healing and emancipatory hope. The crucifixion is a social and political response to the challenge that the life that Jesus lived presented to principalities and powers. Dorothee Soelle, in her book Suffering, has pointed out that there is nothing distinctive in crucifixion; people are, in a sense, “crucified” everyday. What is distinctive is in the life that Jesus lived, in love of God and neighbor, a life that seems to call us to stop the crucifixions! It is time to reclaim the cross–not as a glorification of suffering but as a scene of “dangerous remembrance, empowering resistance, and emancipatory hope” (Joy Ann McDougall, unpublished paper, AAR, 1999).

covnetpres.org/2002/11/who-do-you-say-that-i-am/

 

[OneSheep]

Good morning, ynotzap, I have been away again, sorry about that.

One Sheep:

After Adams fall (one of pride and disobedience, and ingratitude) how could God require a debt that He knew Adam could not pay? Contact with God was not possible, Heaven was closed, the Holy Spirit was gone out of the life of Adam.

I’m not sure that in the debt-view such contact with God was impossible. I think that in both views, God was still in Adam, for we are nothing without God. Adam had a soul. However, Adam was in some way separated from his own faith. Was he separated from his own love of God, though? Was he really intending to tell God that he did not love Him, or instead did Adam’s own action inadvertently communicate lack of love? Remember, the prophets all had access to God. In addition, we cannot limit the action of the Spirit, right? Has the Church ever said that the Spirit was not active before the incarnation?

Humanity was doomed to sin and to Satan’s rule over sinful man. The just debt was humility, obedience, and gratitude, and love. When man offends God, does he love God? We owe God all our love (it is also the greatest commandment, along with love of neighbor)

My own scope of the situation is that one thing that separates the two views is whether God ever took offense. If, for example, Jesus stood at God’s side when Adam defied the Father, did Jesus encourage God to forgive, for Adam did not know what he was doing? Did our omniscient Father, before He created Adam, know that Adam would disobey Him, and therefore planned to give and then take away?

Did God know that Adam would disobey, indeed that all of humanity would sin, before He created, but lovingly gave us the gift of life anyway? The answer to this last question is “yes” in both views. The follow-up question, which divides the views, is “Does God take offense every time a person sins, even though He chose to give life knowing that people would sin, and created us with the capacity to choose sin?”

God knew what would happen before it happened, He also knew He could not create an"infallible man" only God is infallible. You can’t make the same comparison between Adam and the Prodigal son, and the debt owed to the father by the prodigal son. Jesus used the parable to describe a son who was capable of fulfilling a debt that was owed to his father. a debt of love, apology (which was accepted before he even apologized), and now obedience and humility and love. Remember it was stated by the father that his son was dead and now alive, lost and now found. This was not possible to Adam, he was only given hope, the Prodigal son was given the Holy Spirit by Jesus with His coming. The hope had been fulfilled Jesus made it possible to pay the debt owed with His own life.

Well, God could have created an infallible man. Such a man would be a complete robot. The rest of the paragraph is a legitimate variation of the “debt” view, except that the Prodigal son’s fathers’ attitude is not addressed here. Did the father take offense, or did he not? If he did, then that falls in line with the “creditor” view. If he did not take offense, because he already knew that his son would squander and so forth before he even gave him half of his estate, (but decided that the son would learn from error), then this would be part of a God-is-not-a-creditor view.

So we have two entirely different scenarios . Even God’s treatment of humanity was different. From Adam to Jesus, it was the letter of the law, death for transgressions if you violated God by adoring false gods eg.among the chosen people. Now it is the law of grace, compassion, love, forgiveness, restitution, justice, truth Made possible to man by Jesus Now man can escape the rule of Satan and sin and he can do this only through Jesus Christ. The scene was changed completely. Jesus made it possible to harmonize the payment of the debt owed to God, and God’s infinite love for man. The Father always had infinite love for man, and His Son gave us Their Spirit, the Holy Spirit, the Executor of God’s will, man’s Salvation and union with God.

Yes, this is the way that “harmony” is achieved with the Father in the debt view (if the “payment” was demanded). However, the “harmony” I am referring to is the one that harmonizes the idea of a God who demands payment with one who never demanded payment. The idea of a God who is creditor vs. that God is not a creditor, the view that God disfavors in man for sin vs. the view that God never disfavors man, but is patient and loving even in the sight of sin and disobedience. This is a God that knows that all people, eventually, will embrace Him when they know Him. The God-as-creditor view does not share this optimism.

Thanks again.

 

[grannymh]

Two questions.

What does the word “disfavor” really mean?
Why is the word “disfavor” used in reference to God?

Thank you.

 

[grannymh]

The word “disfavor” is often used in this thread – which is exactly why I would appreciate information about the word from a truly Catholic position. (post 376)

Here is a rather interesting example of “disfavor” from post 375.
“Yes, this is the way that “harmony” is achieved with the Father in the debt view (if the “payment” was demanded). However, the “harmony” I am referring to is the one that harmonizes the idea of a God who demands payment with one who never demanded payment. The idea of a God who is creditor vs. that God is not a creditor, the view that God disfavors in man for sin vs. the view that God never disfavors man, but is patient and loving even in the sight of sin and disobedience. This is a God that knows that all people, eventually, will embrace Him when they know Him. The God-as-creditor view does not share this optimism.”

Thank you.